44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 19, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/19/22 7:43:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Ottawa police have expressed concerns around the significant amount of foreign funding supporting this occupation. This is foreign funding that is being funnelled into Canada, often anonymously, supporting a movement that clearly states the goal of overturning government. These funds have been used to push forward an agenda of hate disguised as a peaceful protest, with many joining this cause being unaware of or perhaps ignoring the actual intentions of the organizers. Could the member agree that the lack of government leadership has led us here and that the Emergencies Act will provide us with what is required to finally help people?
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:54:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thought I had indicated that at the beginning, but if not, my apologies. I am sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Centre.
I want to highlight what has been happening with so many small businesses. They have seen illegal obstructions right in their own neighbourhoods. They have had patrons who have had to endure harassment. Many of them have had to shut down their businesses. So many Canadians have had to endure radical comments, rhetoric that has been very toxic, hateful, dangerous. This really has no place in our society, in any town or city in this country. It has no place in Canada. I cannot stress that enough.
My heart sank in the early days of this protest when I saw swastikas and other deplorable signs of white supremacy and anti-Semitism displayed in this country, in front of Canada's Parliament, the freest country in the world. It was a blatant disregard of civil liberties of our country's neighbours.
On Monday when the federal government declared a public emergency order, it was simply because the situation in Ottawa and elsewhere in the country had exceeded beyond the breaking point. My own riding of Labrador and many other communities like it across Canada are so far removed from downtown Ottawa, but MPs were receiving many messages. I received so many messages from people across my riding because they were worried and scared. They were scared for our country and they wrote to me.
One person said, “As a Canadian citizen, I hate the way our country looks right now, how we are made to feel unsafe by radical protesters. Please, please, can government do something to end this protest that is going on?”
This is just one of many messages that I received from Labradorians. It was obvious not only in my riding, but in many other ridings that they were concerned as well. They were concerned about border crossings. They were concerned about what was happening to so many other residents in downtown Ottawa. It was clear that there were serious concerns being expressed, but it was also very clear to our government that there were serious challenges in law enforcement's ability to effectively enforce the law.
They were not moving with the urgency that Canadians reasonably expected and there was, and remains, a serious threat to the security of Canada and all Canadians. It is for these reasons the federal government has stepped in and has used the tools at its disposal to address this very unique and unprecedented situation in the country. When we deal with unprecedented situations that risk the safety and security of the country, it requires unprecedented measures and unprecedented action. The resources are now available to bring a safe conclusion to this illegal occupation.
As the Minister of Justice said a few days ago, Canada is a rule of law country, so by declaring a public order of emergency under the Emergencies Act, our government is following the law and is acting within it. Many of my colleagues already spoke to this part of the legislation, but under this act the federal government is now able to temporarily regulate and prohibit public assemblies that lead to a breach of the peace and go beyond lawful protests, because these are not lawful protests.
It allows the government to temporarily designate and secure places where blockades are to be prohibited, which includes borders and other critical infrastructure to the country. It allows temporarily for government to direct persons to render essential services to relieve the impact of blockades on Canada's economy, which we have seen already being the case. It includes allowing them to access tow trucks and drivers to ensure the job can be done safely and strategically. It also allows government to temporarily authorize or direct financial institutions to render essential services to relieve the impacts of blockades, including regulating and prohibiting the use of property to fund or support the blockades.
It gives temporary abilities to the RCMP to enforce municipal bylaws and provincial defences where required and to temporarily impose fines or imprisonment on those who do not follow the law.
These special measures are necessary, despite what others may say, and they are temporary. Moreover, these measures, like all other government actions, are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Bill of Rights, which many of my colleagues have already spoken of. They give very clear, definitive definitions of those acts and what they mean. We are operating within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Bill of Rights.
That brings me to what this “freedom convoy”, as it has been known, really is. My idea of freedom in this country is having the freedom to express myself in a peaceful manner, having the freedom to walk outside my door and feel safe, having the freedom to go to bed at night unimpeded by honking horns, street parties and fireworks waking me up at all hours in the middle of the night. My idea of freedom in Canada is to be able to go to work—
866 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:02:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, realistically, when looking at the facts of what is happening here, this is not about a peaceful protest. This is about upholding the rule of law.
I have been involved in many protests in my day and I have seen many hard-working men and women who were convicted in their thinking, who walked protest lines for days and nights to bring their points to the government and to the ears of people who were listening, but they never brought harm to anyone around them and they certainly never confronted those in a violent and aggressive manner. What we are dealing with in Canada today is the complete neglect of the law, of Canadian—
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:05:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Labrador for drawing attention to the distortion that is caused by calling the protest in Ottawa “peaceful”. I made the mistake of walking through the group wearing a magenta mask and had a seven-letter f-word hurled at me. I witnessed journalists being physically intimidated.
Did the member ever hear the leaders of the so-called protest condemn these kinds of intimidation that were going on as part of the occupation of downtown Ottawa?
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:05:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate, but I have heard so many members of Parliament express support for this protest and I find it very disturbing. This is radicalism. These are people who have not shown respect for other Canadians or for the cities that they have occupied. They have not at all upheld the rule of law in terms of respecting other human beings.
I am always disturbed when I see any—
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:06:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is no room in Canada for these extreme behaviours and opinions. I really believe that the people who are in the protest are bringing to it all the issues that have plagued them for many years and many decades. This is not the place for it, and their actions have demonstrated that this is not acceptable in Canada.
I support the actions of the government and I support the Emergencies Act.
74 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:07:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have been embarrassed for a long time about what has been going on in the country, especially in Ottawa. I have had a lot of friends across the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe who have been calling me, asking, “What is going on in Canada? You guys are such a great democracy; what's happening?”, and so I have been embarrassed. They were in shock at what was going on here.
In many countries, there were copycats doing what the protesters were doing here, and I must tell members that those copycats were quelled immediately with water cannons, guns and tear gas, to keep them in line. However, what makes me proud of my country is that, in the last two days, we did not do that. The police in this country were restrained; they were professional and they were patient. They were taking abuse, both verbal and physical, and they also had people reach in to try to get their guns. They were mindful of the children in the group; children who were being used as frontline shields. I have no idea what kinds of parents would do that, but this was a way to make everybody see that they were nice and that they had little children. The children were in the front lines, though. Those are the kinds of things we saw going on here, and the police were very careful and worried about the children.
We are asking the question: Why use this Emergencies Act? I have to say that it is pretty easy to see why when we saw the city of Ottawa being occupied for 22 days, and not just by peaceful people who were sitting down singing Kumbaya, but by people who were threatening, verbally harassing and physically intimidating people wearing masks and people of visible minorities, who were scared. Some protesters had volatile materials like gasoline and diesel and were wandering around the city. They were setting off fireworks in a city that has huge high-rises without care or worry whether they would ignite something in the city. They were lawless, and that is the only word I can use. Well, if that is not enough reason to invoke the Emergencies Act in this country, then I do not know what is.
We talked a lot about the rule of law, and I have heard everybody invoking the rule of law. Canada is doing exactly that. This is a country of various jurisdictions under our Constitution. The federal government does not, like a great, wondrous matriarch, walk in and impose on every single municipality or province whatever its will is. It cannot do that. Therefore, what it had to do was to try to give the municipalities and provinces the tools they needed to empower them to be able to deal with the lawlessness, and that is exactly what this Emergencies Act is doing: It is helping municipalities and provinces to have the tools they need.
I have listened to the mayor of Ottawa saying today that they could not get tow trucks. The tow truck drivers did not want to come, because they were scared. They did not want to come in and tow the rigs that were hanging around. However, with the Emergencies Act, the tow trucks were told that they had to come and do that. Now, that is one simple example of how the resources and tools that the police needed had to come through the Emergencies Act.
The Emergencies Act also helps provinces and municipalities take on certain roles that they would not normally take on; for example, the ability for police to come from across the country, including from my own riding, the Vancouver Police Department, of which I am inordinately proud, to help Ottawa. There is the ability to follow the money, find out what foreign entities were funding this anarchy that was going on in our city for 22 days, find out who was sending money to whom and follow cryptocurrency, which was an important part of finding out that there were foreign entities behind all of this.
I heard people on the streets, when the police were moving them back, talking about their First Amendment rights and saying, “You cannot arrest this person; you did not read them their Miranda rights.” Come on, guys, do people not watch enough television to know that we do not do that in Canada? That is not Canadian, so we know that there were foreign entities in this country, manipulating what was going on.
Who is funding them? Who is paying for them? Where does a person get money to spend 22 days, with food, drink and everything they need? Somebody is paying for that. We have to find out who that is.
People talk about sovereignty. Part of that sovereignty is that Canada cannot allow foreign entities to dictate what we do in our democracy. This is a democracy, and in a democracy we have elected governments. I do not care what stripe the government is, but it is elected according to free and fair elections, which is a major part of a democracy. To try to overthrow duly elected officials by mob rule of law, threats and intimidation is anarchy. It cannot be allowed. If these people do not want the government anymore, they have the right to vote against the government in an election. That is what a democracy is about.
A democracy has free media and freedom of the press. The press has been intimidated, harassed, pushed, shoved, threatened and frightened, and I want to take my hat off to all of the press, who have been doing the yeomen's work, who have been unafraid and who have been doing what they need to do, because if the media is shut down, we really do not know what is happening and we are prone to listening to disinformation and false news.
These are some of the things we are talking about here, and I have to say that when the police kept saying to people to move on and get the children out of here, I looked at what was going in Coutts and at some of these border protests. At the Ambassador Bridge there was a line in front of the protesters, of children linking arms. What country are we in when we do that to children and use them as shields to protect so-called “protesters”. There is a dual reason for it. Not only are children shields, because they know nobody will harm children, but also it makes them look nice, quiet, family-oriented and all that kind of thing. That is not what is true. We are seeing this kind of manipulation and intimidation of media.
I must say that we know how much money there is. We look at the border crossings that have been blocked by the trucks, and 95% of our truckers are vaccinated and are going back and forth, bringing food, medicines and everything. We have the ones who did not want to be vaccinated, but freedom applies both ways. Freedom of choice means if someone does not choose to get vaccinated or does not choose to wear masks, they accept the consequences. I taught my kids that. My parents taught me that. We have a choice, but with a choice comes consequences. If, by doing it, it is felt that someone is actually harming others by exposing others to infection, then this is something the government must hear about.
When people say they are blocking truckers who are trying to get across the border to bring food and medicines and to keep trade going, which I think was about $511 million a day when we count all the crossings, this is intimidation. This is not about truckers. This is not about vaccine mandates. This is about anarchy, and I think we need to remember that. For someone to say they will bring down a duly elected government and to use language that is threatening to our Prime Minister, who is duly elected, and when people hug and stand there taking photographs with these people, they are also agreeing that it is okay for mob rule to take down a duly elected government.
It is not a democracy when people do that. We can look at the judges. We have an independent judiciary, and the independent judiciary is now issuing all kinds of writs against the people who have broken the law. Again, we come back to the rule of law. It cannot be had both ways. One cannot talk about rule of law on one hand, and then, when we impose rule of law because of the jurisdictional issues that make us have to do that, say we are breaking the law or imposing a dictatorship. That is not true. A dictator is someone who stops other people from having their freedoms. The protesters did that. They stopped everybody else from having the freedom to wear a mask, the freedom to go to a hospital to get care, the freedom to take their children to school and the freedom to go and shop. Occupiers closed down businesses. Businesses had to close their doors. They were walking into restaurants, intimidating and roughing up, both verbally and physically, waiters, waitresses and the people who were there.
This is not a lawful, peaceful protest, and today, when everyone was singing the national anthem and saying to the police, “We love you,” this is part of a propaganda machine, saying, “Look at us; we are nice people. Look at us; we have a bouncy castle and our children play. We are nice people.”
All of us sitting in the House of Commons must know this not to be true. We know what is happening—
1659 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:32:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my colleague and friend from across the way.
She talked about bouncy castles, the pools that were established and all of the fun that they had. The member opposite sees this as a wonderful protest. She really does not have too much of a problem with it. She does not see the blockade and the many hardships that were caused, whether it was here in downtown Ottawa or at our international borders.
There is someone who does. Senator Vernon White was appointed by Stephen Harper. His was a Conservative Stephen Harper appointment as senator. He was also a former chief of police in Ottawa.
Does the member not think that he knows what he is talking about when he says that having the Emergencies Act is useful for this protest? In fact, it is a good thing. Would she not agree with such a strong, Conservative senator like that, with his experience?
159 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:37:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today I stand in the House to oppose the Prime Minister's unjustified, unconstitutional and unlawful imposition of the Emergencies Act. Tonight, I feel completely inadequate to convey the message that I feel burdened to give. In my mix of heartbreak, sorrow, anger and disgust at the Prime Minister's words and actions over the last two years, I struggle for words. It is made that much more difficult because I am starting to feel a contradiction of feelings.
Over the past couple of days, I have started to feel that there is maybe some reason for hope. I believe that faint hope is like a distant light on the horizon and it is going to spread and expand and be as uncontrollable by the Prime Minister as the morning sunrise. I am disgusted and angered by the things I have witnessed over the past months, and the sorrow and disgust almost broke me today as I witnessed what took place on the street just outside this building. Yes, the Prime Minister got his way. He cleared the streets. He pushed the voices of his critics far enough away that he could no longer hear them, and he did it all with pepper spray and force.
Colleagues, what are we doing here? When the Prime Minister enacted the Emergencies Act, he claimed that it was to save the economy, but the border blockades were already cleared and the protesters had started to dissipate. He then changed his story and claimed that it was all about saving our democracy. However, Parliament continued to operate, legislation continued to be debated and votes continued to happen. The Prime Minister then changed his story again and said the act was needed to remove the trucks. However, legal experts disputed that and said that authorities already existed to remove the trucks. Now, the trucks are gone and have been cleared, and he still wants these unprecedented powers.
Why does he need these powers? The borders are open, the trucks are gone and the streets are clear. What is left? It seems the Prime Minister is going to continue to suspend civil liberties and legal protections until he can be sure that he has silenced his opponents permanently and has sent the message to anyone who disagrees with him that he will do the same thing to them. He will seize bank accounts, phone records and whatever else he needs without the requirement for normal legal protections and court orders.
This did not start just a couple of weeks ago. The Prime Minister has been seeking to wedge, stigmatize and divide Canadians for his own political advantage for some time. Even members of his own party are starting to call him out for it. He said “those people”. He called them extremists who do not believe in science. They are misogynists. They are often racists. They are science deniers, a fringe minority holding unacceptable opinions. They are anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, anti-Black, homophobic and transphobic. They are a small group of the population. They are taking up space, he said. He asked whether the country needed to “tolerate these people“. The Prime Minister therefore enacted unjustified rules that were intentionally discriminatory so that those people “taking up space” would not need to be tolerated.
I will not share with the House her name, but a lady asked to meet with me in my constituency office several months ago. She sat across the boardroom table from me and told the story of losing her son to complications from a vaccination decades ago. She sobbed as she expressed her fears of getting the injection. She had fear for herself, fear for her children and fear for her grandchildren. She asked me why the Prime Minister would make her do this. Why would he not understand that she could not do it? She had already had COVID and wanted to know if she could get an exemption to the federal mandate so she could see her elderly mum, who lives a significant distance away. She needed to fly there.
I could not answer this lady's question. She is not a racist. She is not an extremist. She is not a fringe minority.
Norm and his family farmed a few miles away from the farm where I grew up. My entire life I knew he was a strong NDP supporter. I knew he had run for the party in 1988 under Ed Broadbent. Norm and his family were generous neighbours, and although our families may not have agreed when it came to politics, we always knew that if we needed help, we would help each other.
When I became an MP over 16 years ago, Norm maintained his communication with me and was always well read and informed when he would express concerns about multinational corporations or about the Harper government. More recently, he expressed a more urgent concern about the current Prime Minister and the mandates that have been imposed on all Canadians. He called it crushing citizens' rights to peaceful protest.
I want to address my NDP friends. Norm has written to many of them, and although they cannot tell from his emails, his words are sincere. He fears for his grandchildren, children and neighbours. He has begged us not to support the passage of the Emergencies Act. Norm is a good man with a good family. He is not an extremist. He believes in science. He is not a misogynist, nor is he a racist.
Chris is a city councillor for the City of Grand Prairie. Chris cares deeply about our community, especially about the vulnerable who live within our region. Chris has been a leading advocate for bringing meaningful change and reconciliation for indigenous people who live in our communities. He is a good friend of mine.
Last week, Chris was in Ottawa to protest the discriminatory policies and mandates of the federal government. Chris is not an extremist. He is not anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, anti-Black, racist, homophobic or transphobic. One person in the House who knows that as well as I do is the Prime Minister. He knows Chris because they have close mutual friends. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister called Chris personally to ask him to run for the Liberal Party of Canada. Unfortunately, because of his stand against injustice and division, people across the country have now echoed the Prime Minister's words and accused my friend, our friend, who has two Black sisters, of being a racist and a misogynist. This has to end.
My colleagues and I have a choice. History will judge us for our decision. Will we do the right thing and reject the politics of division and hate and end this attack on freedom, or will we grant the Prime Minister this unlimited power he wants so he can attack his political adversaries?
I said at the beginning of my speech that I had reason for hope, and I do have hope. The reason is that, while 338 of us in the House may or may not do the right thing, I know Canadians have had enough of the divisions, they have had enough of the hate and they have had enough of the political divisions.
I have no faith in the Prime Minister and have no faith that he will change, but I have faith that Canadians have seen all they need to see. They know who the Prime Minister is. They have seen the pain he is willing to inflict on people who do not agree with him. I trust Canadians. I hope my colleagues in this building will do the same and give Canadians their freedoms back.
1295 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:46:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have three points of clarification. First, today, a blockade exists in Surrey, B.C. Second, the declaration order, notwithstanding the submissions from the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, is not about entrusting the Prime Minister with emergency powers. It is about empowering police, who operate independently, to enforce the law. Third, lawful protest is permitted pursuant to this order and is always permitted under the charter. It is only protests that breach peace that would be prevented.
I am going to put this to the member very squarely. Members of his party have talked about law and order and have said it is founded on a law and order premise. Can we at least agree on one thing? When it gets to the point after 22 days that members of the public in Ottawa are taking matters into their own hands because they are so frustrated with the lack of enforcement, we have a problem that needs to be addressed with powers, including increased powers such as the ones the interim chief, Steve Bell, has welcomed to empower enforcement.
184 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:48:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I like that the member took the time to explain that there were people who supported the protest but in no way fit the descriptions made of them.
I also understand that when we find out that some more extremist factions are funding these groups, some soul-searching is in order.
Does the member think it possible that the fact that people who are fed up with the health measures have been described in ways that do not reflect them might ultimately have led them to support the demonstration, even though they may not have intended to do so at first?
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:56:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the government could have avoided this whole circumstance had it helped Canadians through this difficult time. Instead, it let inaction and partisanship guide it, and let those who sought to hurt our economy and our international reputation as Canadians by not acting sooner. All of this was done by the government, while Conservatives emboldened the occupiers, meeting with them as they stood shoulder to shoulder displaying Nazi and Confederate flags. The emergency we are facing was not a surprise.
Organizers such as Pat King, who was first listed as the Alberta organizer for Canada Unity, has a known history of white supremacy and has previously been seen on videos saying white people have the strongest bloodlines. When talking about COVID restrictions in December, just one month before the protest, he said, “The only way that this is going to be solved is with bullets.” As much as I disagree, and as much as I condemn the statements of Mr. King and believe them to be hate-motivated, I respect every group's right to peaceful assembly and peaceful protest, but what we have witnessed here and across the country is certainly not that.
As a matter of fact, I have been in many protests over the past decade, and I am a proud indigenous land defender myself. I am a true believer in public demonstration and community solidarity. It is absolutely fundamental and necessary to ensuring democracy, accountability and diversity of opinion in Canada.
That being said, it is clear that the situation across the country, in particular in my home province of Alberta, at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, and in Ottawa, should have never gotten to this point. There is a combination of ill forces that have contributed to this current crisis, such as the lack of proper leadership to combat disinformation in our country. Hate, racism and terrorism funding are undeniable facts of the situation and are some things anti-racism groups across our country have warned us against for years.
When we saw how fragile democracy was in the United States when the Capitol was attacked, we all thought it could not happen here. Here we are, three weeks into this, with hopes of finally restoring public order, which should have taken place a long time ago. We knew this was coming.
I am sure those who have engaged in peaceful assembly, such as myself, have noticed the extreme difference in the standard of policing for indigenous land defenders and for organizations such as the ones we are seeing right now. It has never taken the use of the Emergencies Act to have police forcefully remove land defenders, often with violence. It is an unfortunate precedent that already exists in our country. I mean to say that regardless of the Emergencies Act, indigenous people have been subject to state violence since the inception of Canada and its laws, and we need to tackle that issue. From the evidence today and yesterday, I am pleased to see that police can, in fact, enforce public order without the use of bullets, tear gas, chainsaws or axes. To the police, I know many others will be watching.
Over the past three weeks, Canadians have witnessed local and municipal police fail to uphold the most basic of bylaws and ordinances made to protect our economy, residents and transport corridors. Just last week, some members of the southern Alberta Coutts blockade were charged with conspiracy to murder RCMP officers after a weapons cache was found. It should never have gotten to that point. Armed violence and intimidation are not conducive to a free democracy, and instances such as this are likely in other parts of our country. I have heard from many Black, indigenous and other people-of-colour communities who are feeling scared right now. They are feeling intimidated for their immediate safety.
I have spoken to health care professionals in Edmonton Griesbach. Nurses, doctors and health care aides are feeling the same way. Hate toward frontline health care workers over the past few weeks has resulted in hospitals telling their own employees not to wear any identifiable health care clothes due to the rise in attacks. This is Canada, my friends. This is right now. This is today. A truly free democracy is one that does not allow discourse to take a back seat to intimidation and violence. This is not freedom. This is not Canada. It is clearly hate.
Lastly, without getting into the nuanced and complicated differences between Canadian civil rights guarantees and the rights of sovereign indigenous nations, please know that the use of the Emergencies Act does not in any way negate or dismiss indigenous people's rights and/or laws to access and occupy their own lands.
The reasons I have outlined here are why my NDP colleagues and I have decided to support these very limited measures under the Emergencies Act. They largely include the coordination of local enforcement, as noted by the interim Ottawa police chief, and powers to investigate foreign and domestic financial influences that are fuelling this hate-motivated occupation. My entire caucus and I believe in reasonable limits, which include the barring of any use of the Canadian Armed Forces, and the upholding and non-suspension of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It is with the utmost reluctance we do this for the betterment of our safety, for our country and for the survival of our democracy. We will be steadfast in monitoring these powers and have a clear path to revoke or, at any time, not support these powers that infringe on our civil rights and our democracy. The tool can never become the problem. Kinana'skomitina'wa'w.
956 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:05:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, under the new act that is being talked about, the Emergencies Act, financial institutions are required to cease dealing with designated persons. These designated persons are defined as anyone associated with a protest.
Using your past experience, were you a designated person in past protests? Were you a protest organizer? Were you a protest attendee? Were you a donor, or were you someone who just tweeted support? Would you, under this act, have your financial institution cease dealing with you?
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:08:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, before I begin, my thoughts are with the people of Bulkley Valley, who have been shocked by the recent violence and vandalism at a work site on the Marten Forest Service Road. My thoughts go out specifically to the workers of that site who have been traumatized and the officer who was injured. I denounce these acts, and I join my constituents in demanding a full and thorough investigation to hold those responsible accountable.
I rise this evening, at this troubling and historic time in our country, to address the motion before us to confirm the use of the Emergencies Act to restore social order. I have been here in Ottawa for last three weeks. I arrived the day after the convoy did. For most of the past 22 days, I have walked through downtown Ottawa twice a day, and I have paid close attention to the convoy, the messages on the signs, the people, and the people of this city, those who live and work downtown and who have been so profoundly affected by this illegal occupation.
I believe protest is an important part of our democracy. It can give the voiceless a voice and ensure that citizens have a way to communicate the strength of their feelings, views and beliefs to their government. I have attended dozens of protests in my life, and I have a particular respect for peaceful, non-violent, civil disobedience, which has played an important in our history role in so much of our social progress, but this is not that. What we have witnessed for the past three weeks is nothing short of the occupation of the capital city of a G7 country. It is an event that I find deeply troubling for a number of reasons.
The first lies in the stated goal of the leaders of this occupation, which, as my friend from Edmonton Griesbach articulated, is to subvert our democracy and overthrow a democratically elected government.
The second reason I find this troubling is the effect the occupation has had on the people of Ottawa. Thousands of innocent people, who were already struggling in the midst of the pandemic, are unable to go to work or go about their daily lives with the peace and security they so deserve. I also think of the thousands of people across Canada who have been affected similarly by blockades at bridges and along trade corridors.
The third reason I am troubled lies in the stream of funding coming from south of the border from individuals who see fit to destabilize our country in the same vein as the attempted insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Finally, the fourth reason is the presence of extremism, evidenced by the occupation's leaders, their history, their rhetoric and their associations.
I know there are many people in northwest B.C. for whom the occupation and convoy have provided an outlet for their frustrations and anger. I ask them simply to look into who is behind this event. I considered naming the occupation leaders and some of their more troubling views here this evening, as my colleague and others have done previously in this debate, but I am not going to do that because I refuse to give them the notoriety they seem to crave.
At the centre of this crisis lies the failure of the police. If they had done their job properly from the outset and taken the threats seriously, we would not be finding ourselves where we are this evening. As the occupation dug in, I heard from many indigenous and non-indigenous constituents who were stunned by the contrast between the kid-glove approach of the Ottawa Police Service here and the way in which indigenous protesters in northwest B.C. and across Canada are policed. Many members in this place have noted that contrast, and it is something that must be addressed. It is because of the failure of local and provincial law enforcement to protect social order that we must consider this extraordinary measure before us.
I would simply ask those who are opposing this motion what the alternative is. They suggest that the Prime Minister should negotiate with those who have occupied the city, but negotiate with whom? Surely not the leaders of this occupation.
Others have suggested that the police forces have existing powers and legislation at their disposal, but what use are provisions in the Criminal Code if police are either unwilling or unable to apply them? In fact, the police have been calling out for help. They have said clearly that they are not able to deal with this situation with the powers, tools and resources at their disposal.
This occupation has gone on now for three weeks. Does such a situation not call for the government to consider providing additional powers? To be honest, I find the objections of some in this House to be somewhat naive, especially from those parties that traditionally espouse law and order. We are called on now to protect the people of our country, and we must step up.
This is not to say that I am comfortable with the invocation of the Emergencies Act. I hear the voices of those who caution us that this is a dangerous precedent and that it could lead to future uses that are less appropriate, including its use against lawful demonstration. It falls to all of us in this place to ensure that this does not happen. New Democrats have been clear that we will not tolerate the inappropriate use of these additional powers by the government, and we are prepared to initiate their revocation at a moment's notice.
Turning to the larger context of this global pandemic in which we find ourselves, I want to acknowledge that, two years in, a lot of people are fed up. Some are angry and some are desperate. How could they possibly be otherwise? We must not allow ourselves to fall into thinking that these circumstances are any kind of normal. A situation that requires such broad and sweeping restrictions as have been necessary is not normal.
Over the past three weeks, I have heard from many constituents with strong feelings about the government's management of the pandemic and about the matter before us today. I want to speak directly to them now. I hear them. I hear their frustration and anger with a government and a prime minister that they feel are out of touch with the challenges they are facing. I hear their concern that the federal government has not always been transparent or explained the evidence upon which pandemic measures are based. I hear their concern that certain measures have affected small businesses, especially small tourism businesses, in ways that go beyond what the pandemic relief programs have compensated for. I hear their concern about the mental health impacts of the pandemic.
For the small number of constituents who have chosen not to get vaccinated and who stand to lose their livelihoods in a few short months, I say this: I disagree with their choice, but I empathize with their predicament. One's livelihood is a sacred thing and governments should only interfere with it in the direst of circumstances. I continue to push for the government to provide greater clarity as to whether such measures remain necessary at this juncture of the pandemic.
I hear them.
I will end with an expression of gratitude. It is gratitude for the thousands of people in northwest B.C. who have sacrificed in small and large ways out of concern for the health and well-being of their neighbours, their loved ones, the elders in our community and our seniors. It is gratitude for the health care workers who, for two years, have gone to work every day in the face of a struggling health care system and who have shown themselves to be nothing short of heroes. It is gratitude to live in a country where this debate is possible, where checks and balances exist and where democracy is strong enough to stand up against threats to the fabric of our nation.
I reject the notion that we are more divided than ever. It is the social solidarity of Canadians and our care for each other that has allowed us to reach this point with so many fewer deaths per capita than many other countries. It is this care and concern for each other that I believe lies as the basis of our freedom as a people.
When I search for strength in the face of a difficult decision in this place, my mind turns to home. It turns to Skeena and the places that inspire, ground and motivate so many. I think of the Skeena River, flowing free to the Pacific Ocean. I think of the people. They are strong, caring and good people. I am so deeply honoured to speak on their behalf.
1498 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:18:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, which clearly explained the balance between freedoms and social order. However, he criticizes the government for not having acted quickly enough.
Could my colleague tell me what he would say to those who believe that the actions of the last few days constitute a crackdown and a denial of the right to protest?
67 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:23:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by informing you that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Beauport—Limoilou.
The situation is serious. People are concerned. They are contacting us. I have received all sorts of messages. The vast majority are from people asking us not to support this special legislation. People are saying that they do not want us to support this unacceptable law.
We have also received messages from people asking how they can support the protesters. Those messages are fewer in number, but we have received some. Still other messages ask me how I can abandon people who are fighting for their freedom. These messages are coming from all over, but these people all have one thing in common. They are all worried and unhappy with the situation.
Let us ask ourselves why. How did we get to the point where our society has become so divided? I am sure that all my colleagues in the House are also receiving all kinds of messages. We are doing our best to answer them. We are explaining our positions. Generally, it is fine.
How did we get to this point? It is because we do not have a leader. The government is sowing division. Let me put it this way: The government had the audacity to use the collective distress of a certain group of people for political purposes, and it let those people settle in.
We could have handled the situation differently. It is always easier to say that in hindsight, of course, but we know it can be done. We have seen it elsewhere.
What did it take? It took a leader. What is the difference between Quebec City and Ottawa? Earlier, someone said that other cities had learned from Ottawa's experience. Beyond that, Quebec City had the benefit of a mayor and a premier who spoke to each other, created a crisis task force, coordinated police forces and recognized the demonstrators' right to protest. These things were completely missing in Ottawa. Ironically enough, the most reviled of those people were the ones who protested the longest. I am not saying whether they were right or wrong. I am speaking to the heart of the issue.
How can someone who is the Prime Minister, the head of state, throw fuel on the fire right from the outset and insult Canadians? Perhaps the Prime Minister did not agree with their message, but these people are Canadians.
A head of state must must be able to calm things down. I am not talking about giving in either, but, first of all, he should not have insulted people. Second, why not at least meet with the the truckers' official representatives? This has been mentioned several time in the debates. Ninety per cent of them are vaccinated too. For the most part, they did not agree with the protest. The Prime Minister did not meet with anyone.
Every time there is a crisis, this Prime Minister hides and waits for things to blow over. In times of crisis, the 338 elected members of the House of Commons have a collective duty to come together and work for the common good. To do that, something has to happen. Someone has to be willing to talk to us. We cannot always be dealing people who only want to score political points.
That just does not work. We all saw the images from yesterday and today. I want to once again commend the police forces, because this is not an easy job. It is unfortunate that it has come to this. Everyone finds this sad.
How could the government allow the entire city to be occupied for 23 days? Think of Ottawa's residents and small businesses. We abandoned them.
Being Prime Minister is not about recognition. It is not about having a illustrious title and another trophy on the shelf.
Being prime minister is fraught with consequences. It comes with a very heavy burden. One must be worthy of the position. I am sad to say that no one saw the Prime Minister for three weeks. What happened? He went into hiding, hoping this would pass. It was not the first time this has happened.
Someone else mentioned this earlier today. I remember the blockades in support of the Wet'suwet'en Nation that took place not too long ago. No one talks about it, because it happened before COVID-19. It is as though we have forgotten everything before COVID-19.
Obviously, we are talking about two completely different types of protests. I am not trying to lump them together or draw a comparison. However, I remember that the blockades began in one place, but the government did absolutely nothing. Nothing happened. Our Prime Minister was in Africa, trying to win votes for Canada to get a seat at the UN. He never got it. He did not care about what was going on at home. He came back 10 days later. The crisis had grown, and it was much more difficult to manage.
We proposed solutions. We proposed that law enforcement, the RCMP, be withdrawn. We also proposed negotiations. In the beginning, the government wanted nothing to do with our proposals. What did it ultimately do to resolve the crisis? The government listened to the Bloc Québécois's recommendations.
I am very disappointed to say that this time no one listened to us at all. During the early days of the crisis, we called for the party leaders to meet. We also called for the creation of a crisis task force and a committee. There needs to be a discussion. Something needs to happen. We need to talk to our constituents, who are fed up and can no longer cope with the restrictions that have been in place for two years. That is the real situation. That is what happened.
I have a feeling—and it is just a feeling, not something I know for sure—but when I look at this from an outside perspective, I wonder why not let a demonstration go on in my capital in front of Parliament. It would make people unhappy and perhaps cause division within some of the opposition parties where there is some tension. It worked to some extent. After that, the protesters will get tired and leave. If they do not, then the government can intervene and will come across looking strong. That was an error in judgment.
What consequences did waiting have? More people ended up coming and sticking around. Everything ended up being blockaded. It was at that point that the blockades at the Ambassador Bridge and the borders started.
Suddenly, there was a dramatic turn of events. The Prime Minister got a call from the U.S. President. I am not sure if my colleagues know this, but almost $400 million worth of goods move across the Ambassador Bridge every day. If Ottawa residents have to put up with honking for a month, then that is no big deal. I am not saying that the bridge used for commerce should be left blocked, but I am drawing a parallel between the two.
The Prime Minister got a call from the U.S. President. Thrown into a panic, our poor Prime Minister started saying that this had to stop. That is when the police moved in, without using the Emergencies Act. That is the big difference. We did not need this law.
The same thing could have been done in the City of Ottawa. After it has dragged on for more than 20 days, it is much more difficult to move. We saw it in the last few days. It was predictable. This is a sad situation. It should not have gotten to this point. People have the right to protest, but they need to follow the rules while doing it. People have the right to protest, but they cannot occupy a city for a month. People have the right to go about their lives. This is not right.
Caught in a bind, the Liberals came up with a way to help the government and the Prime Minister save face by invoking this law as a publicity stunt. This is the first time that this has happened since 1988. In fact, this law has never been invoked before. Personally, I am deeply disturbed that it was invoked this time.
Of course, today's law is not the same as the 1970 law. I will not conflate the two. What bothers me a lot is that this sets a precedent. Now whenever a government gets into a political tight spot, it will use this law. What will happen five or 10 years from now, when another government, regardless of its political stripe, wants to use it? That is the question, and that is why we will be voting against it.
1494 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:33:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague does not seem to understand that governments do not direct the police.
Does my colleague realize that what we have seen and experienced is part of a something bigger than mandatory vaccination for truckers?
We already met with the convoy organizers two years ago. They came here with their trucks to protest the carbon tax.
Does my colleague also know that the Canada Unity Facebook page was created two years ago?
Does he not believe that we may be facing a movement that goes beyond the very narrow main objective mentioned during the protest, which was for the government to lift vaccination requirements for truckers?
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:10:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there seem to be two conflicting views. One is that the convoy was all about vaccine mandates and personal freedoms. On the other hand, when listening to the leaders, it sounded like an insurrection, that they were coming with the intent of overthrowing the democratically elected government. The supporters of the protest, including the Conservatives, have either been naively blind to the fact that they were gamed by the true leaders of this, or they are wilfully blind to the evidence that those leaders presented. What are your thoughts on that?
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:26:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have just proven that we can actually have conversations, because I just heard a question from the member without being called any names. I thank that member.
The fact of what he is referring to, when we are looking at this, is that there is nobody here saying that we approve of the blockades. It is just being said we have. When I say there are regular people out there, I have never said that everybody is regular. I am saying the majority of people out there protesting, or that were out there protesting before these new measures came in, were just absolutely normal people.
There are always going to be those people. No matter what kind of protest, there are always going to be those individuals. That is something I am very concerned with.
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:30:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, here we are this evening, debating the invoking of the Emergencies Act. It definitely is something I thought we would not be debating just three weeks ago. Like all Canadians, I expected that proper leadership would rise up and deal with this situation long ago, and of course that did not happen with the Liberal government and the Prime Minister. Instead, we are here debating this matter because of this gross lack of leadership. Instead of leadership that would bring us closer together and closer to a solution, we have a prime minister focused on inflaming the situation with reckless name-calling, provocation, division, smearing and dismissive attitude.
Before I get to my comments on the act, I want to make it clear that I strongly support the rights of all Canadians to peacefully and lawfully protest. I have never supported and will never support law-breaking in the name of protesting. Our society rests on the rule of law, and it must always be this way. There are plenty of ways to lawfully and effectively protest. I also believe protests are about having one's message heard, not destroying our economy and the lives of our fellow citizens while doing so. One only need look at the debates in this House, the media coverage, social media and the like to see that their message was heard long ago, and now it is time for the protesters to go home. It looks like they have gone. I have not looked outside recently, but I guess we will see what happens in the next few days.
However, we must remember that if people feel they are not heard, they will not listen. It is as simple as that. Protests are about being heard, not necessarily getting their way. Governments have a responsibility to listen to protesters, but no obligation to concede to their demands. Like any debate, including those in this House, we have the right to be heard, but not a right to get our desired result.
Canadians are justifiably concerned about the implementation of the Emergencies Act and how it will affect them. A lack of details about this legislation, its implementation and how it will be used is causing great angst for many, and understandably so.
Like almost everything since the beginning of this pandemic, the lack of a coherent, long-term plan from the Liberal government has resulted in Canadians living with an unacceptable level of uncertainty. It is hurting our economy and, more importantly, it is hurting our mental health. This is not the first protest in Canada, and it will not be the last. Canadians have always cherished their right to protest peacefully. Unfortunately, not all protests start or end peacefully, and we have many laws on the books to deal with these situations.
One way or another, police have found a way to end these protests with the tools already available to them. Even now, as we debate the use of the Emergencies Act, the Liberal government has still failed to explain why existing laws are not sufficient to deal with this situation. The Emergencies Act is an important and necessary legislative tool to have on the books. However, it is only meant to be used when existing legislation is insufficient to get the job done.
This subject has generated significant mail to my offices, and I am sure to all of my colleagues' offices as well. I would like to share some of them, as I think it is important that my constituents are heard in their own words.
Leanne said in a letter to the Prime Minister, and copied it to me, “While I can understand your frustration with some of the actions of the 'freedom convoy' protests, your actions go much too far.”
Joe, in my riding, said in a letter to the Prime Minister, copied to me, “Even if you truly believe that these measures are justified now, have you considered what kind of precedent you're setting? When protestors were burning churches and committing other hate crimes last summer, would you have supported a call to freeze the bank accounts of Indigenous activists? What will you say if a future federal government bans crowdfunding by Black Lives Matter protestors?
“Do you really want to be remembered as the Prime Minister who made it 'normal' for Canadian governments to take these actions against any protest movement that they disagree with?
“Canada must remain a country where people of all viewpoints can protest freely, regardless of whether the people currently in power happen to agree with them.
“Step back, Prime Minister. You've gone too far.”
Lorne said, “I do not believe the Prime Minister when he states this will be a measured and time limited response. This is the foot in the door to allow him or any standing government to overstep their authority in order to control Canadian citizens.”
Nick said, “There is no need to escalate what is currently a civil, peaceful, legal protest, albeit with vehicles illegally parked and ticketed causing disruption to traffic, daily life and commerce in a small area. There is a practical political solution. I say: Do NOT ratify the imposition of the Emergencies Act.”
As Beau pointed out, “section 3 of the Emergencies Act spells out the circumstances under which it may be invoked. These are: a) a national emergency that seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or b) a national emergency that seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada.
“Neither of these conditions are met.... By invoking the federal Emergencies Act in the complete absence of any reasonable justification, [the Prime Minister] is setting a dangerous precedent that threatens the right of all Canadians to peaceful assembly and association or protest.”
I could go on for hours, literally, with the hundreds of letters I have received, and I have read them all. I have had only one letter, just a single letter, that supports the Liberal government's intentions. Remarkably, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have united Canadians on this one issue: not to use the Emergencies Act like this. They should not use it now.
I am deeply concerned that using this legislation will normalize its use every time we have a few hundred protesters. This poses a direct threat to all Canadians in the future, when a government uses a hammer to deal with a fly. Once we cross this line and use the Emergencies Act, it will make it politically easier for any future government to do the same. I truly expect we will see it used again by this very government. Will it be used and abused against indigenous protests in the future? Will it be used and abused against environmental protesters in the future? Will it be used and abused against those protesting religious issues, immigration issues, race issues, global issues or taxation? I bet it will.
No matter where we sit on the political spectrum or where we sit on an issue, we ought to be united in our concern to protect the right to lawfully protest, the right to be heard.
Canadians cannot afford to build and entrench measures that silence Canadians, when democratic governments around the world should be striving to do a better job of listening to their citizens. Governments often limit activities over time, but rarely do they go the opposite way. If we lose something to the state today, we will likely not get it back any time soon.
I have listened. I have heard my constituents, and I certainly will not be voting for the use of the Emergencies Act at this time. To my colleagues in the NDP caucus, I will let them know that many NDP supporters in my riding have written to me in dismay at their party supporting this legislation. They realize the dangerous precedent this would set, and they are deeply concerned about this passing. They are concerned—
1379 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
